BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:MinotStateBeav said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk
— Amir Odom (@amirxodom) September 13, 2025
(0:00) - Intro
(10:58) - On Second Amendment
(12:48) - On Empathy
(15:42) - On Gay People
(17:58) - On Trans People
(24:21) - On Racism
(28:21) - On Affirmative Action
(30:58) - On Critical Race Theory
(34:56) - On Illegal… pic.twitter.com/6NKI1L4jVt
I was thinking more something straight from Kirk himself.
It's includes clips of Kirk highlighting his core beliefs of each issue listed
Okay, but the argument from Kirk fans is that people on the left just unfairly take short clips of him saying negative stuff and that you can't see the full context. If a fan like this is selectively showing you POSITIVE clips of him, isn't that just the same thing on the other end?
What's a good way to get the full experience of the guy?
Fair point. I'll look later today and see if I can find something that fits more what you're looking for
Okay. So I did watch most of that guy's video you posted and here's my reaction:
Some of the points are fair, Kirk wasn't necessarily explicitly racist against Blacks or Latinos, just very much against DEI and affirmative action programs. One can agree or disagree with that but I wouldn't call it fundamentally offensive to say so.
When he talks about Kirk's opinions on LGBT issues is where you can tell this guy has to start tip-toeing around what Kirk actually said, especially because he's gay. Kirk explicitly says that he wouldn't allow gay marriage. The guy in the video kind of cuts off the clip right there and says in a hand-wavey kind of way, "Well I'm not going to dismiss the guy because of one opinion." Okay, maybe he wouldn't but could you see why a lot of gay or lesbian folks would pretty much call that a deal-breaker? If Charlie Kirk were in charge he'd take away their rights, and that seems pretty explicit to me. From my perspective, seeing this clip doesn't help at all. I dislike him even more after seeing it.
On the trans stuff: Kirk is polite with the trans person who questioned him in the clip, I'll give him that. And the criticism of clinics rushing to diagnose and prescribe medicine or surgery to kids who might show gender dysphoria is fair. But he also quite explicitly says that you shouldn't call a person by their preferred pronouns because it's a lie, and then he goes into saying that you can't change chromosomes, etc. But that wasn't the argument from the student; the student says that it's about common courtesy. And you know what? I think the student is right! It absolutely is rude if a person says to you, "I want you to call me 'she' now even though I was born as a male, and also by this new name" and you refuse to do so. Again, to me this does not make Charlie Kirk look good, and this kind of argument kind of gives away the game to me that it's not just about kids or women's sports, it's about denying the existence of trans people and even adults' desire to live their lives as they want.
If this is meant to be the friendliest argument in favor of Charlie Kirk, then I say no thanks. Doesn't mean he should have been shot, of course he shouldn't have. But I will continue to say he was a toxic presence in our politics when he was alive.
Valid points for the most part. Agree to disagree on some such as I don't think it should be required for me to call a person by pronouns I don't agree with. They can identify and call themselves whatever they'd like, doesn't mean I have to agree to that. Change your life if you want, don't force me to change mine.
His response to gay marriage is based on his faith belief. He never tells anyone they shouldn't be gay or that they are less than for being gay. He's also on the record saying anyone who doesn't think gays can be conservative don't belong in the Conservative Party
Not sure anyone in that clip was talking about "required" other than Charlie Kirk himself, he brought that up. The student just said you should do it out of basic courtesy. I agree with the student. And I also think this statement betrays a larger attitude that trans people just shouldn't exist at all. Otherwise why refuse to call them by the name they have chosen as grown adults?
Universities were and so do some companies. Conservatives don't see lying to somebody as a courtesy and not helpful to them. Reality is tough enough without having to live in pretend land. You see playing along as caring, conservatives see telling the truth as the caring choice.
We will never agree about this.
And guess what… THATS OKAY! Neither have to be labeled a bigot or hater or racist or transphobe or whatever other term.
Discourse is fundamentally American. Share your opinions, listen to others opinions, agree to disagree sometimes.
Saying that trans people don't really exist and it's a lie is kind of transphobic, though.
You cannot scientifically change your sex. That's all I'm saying and that's not transphobic. It's factual, evidence based truth.
Okay but a trans person is someone who was born as one gender and wants to live and identify as the other. These people exist and are not lying about it.
No one is saying these people don't "exist." Of course they do and most people agree that adults should be free to live their lives however they want. However, the trans community has constructed the completely absurd argument that if you don't agree that a man can become a woman, or vice versa - which is a legitimate science based viewpoint - that you are denying their existence.
OsoDorado said:
Simple Question:
How is it possibly legal to carry and openly display these kinds of semi-automatic weapons (AR-15s?) in public?
What purpose other than intimidation does this serve, and whatever 2nd amendment defense is offered, isn't it out-weighed the right of citizens to not have their safety so brazenly threatened?
BearGoggles said:bearister said:PAC-10-BEAR said:The reason the idea that “both sides” commit political violence is so offensive is not only that it’s false; it’s that it reassigns to the Right to half the guilt of a crime committed against them, while not one Democrat has apologized for the rhetoric they shared with the killer pic.twitter.com/I5DdaRqrB3
— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) September 16, 2025
Right-Wing Extremist Terrorism in the United States | ADL https://www.adl.org/resources/report/right-wing-extremist-terrorism-united-states
There are undoubtedly extremists on both sides. Both sides have engaged in political violence, unfortunately.
Which side advocates for (or at least tolerates) violence? The polling makes that pretty clear.1 in 4 self-identified ‘very liberal’ respondents *volunteered* to this pollster their belief that political violence can sometimes be justified. These are the people who support CEO assassins, snipers who shoot bullets through opponents’ necks, and Hamas terrorists. https://t.co/nRTVqcNqci
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 16, 2025
Interesting polling data: Those with unfavorable views of Donald Trump are the LEAST LIKELY to support political violence. pic.twitter.com/Xqbuo07wwF
— Phil Williams (@PhilNvestigates) September 15, 2025
PAC-10-BEAR said:The reason the idea that “both sides” commit political violence is so offensive is not only that it’s false; it’s that it reassigns to the Right to half the guilt of a crime committed against them, while not one Democrat has apologized for the rhetoric they shared with the killer pic.twitter.com/I5DdaRqrB3
— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) September 16, 2025
socaltownie said:
???
What if you are asked by a multiracial person to refere to them as x? Is it your right to be an *******? See that os what some of us mean by privledge...you essentially saying your snowflake trumps all.
sycasey said:BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:MinotStateBeav said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk
— Amir Odom (@amirxodom) September 13, 2025
(0:00) - Intro
(10:58) - On Second Amendment
(12:48) - On Empathy
(15:42) - On Gay People
(17:58) - On Trans People
(24:21) - On Racism
(28:21) - On Affirmative Action
(30:58) - On Critical Race Theory
(34:56) - On Illegal… pic.twitter.com/6NKI1L4jVt
I was thinking more something straight from Kirk himself.
It's includes clips of Kirk highlighting his core beliefs of each issue listed
Okay, but the argument from Kirk fans is that people on the left just unfairly take short clips of him saying negative stuff and that you can't see the full context. If a fan like this is selectively showing you POSITIVE clips of him, isn't that just the same thing on the other end?
What's a good way to get the full experience of the guy?
Fair point. I'll look later today and see if I can find something that fits more what you're looking for
Okay. So I did watch most of that guy's video you posted and here's my reaction:
Some of the points are fair, Kirk wasn't necessarily explicitly racist against Blacks or Latinos, just very much against DEI and affirmative action programs. One can agree or disagree with that but I wouldn't call it fundamentally offensive to say so.
When he talks about Kirk's opinions on LGBT issues is where you can tell this guy has to start tip-toeing around what Kirk actually said, especially because he's gay. Kirk explicitly says that he wouldn't allow gay marriage. The guy in the video kind of cuts off the clip right there and says in a hand-wavey kind of way, "Well I'm not going to dismiss the guy because of one opinion." Okay, maybe he wouldn't but could you see why a lot of gay or lesbian folks would pretty much call that a deal-breaker? If Charlie Kirk were in charge he'd take away their rights, and that seems pretty explicit to me. From my perspective, seeing this clip doesn't help at all. I dislike him even more after seeing it.
On the trans stuff: Kirk is polite with the trans person who questioned him in the clip, I'll give him that. And the criticism of clinics rushing to diagnose and prescribe medicine or surgery to kids who might show gender dysphoria is fair. But he also quite explicitly says that you shouldn't call a person by their preferred pronouns because it's a lie, and then he goes into saying that you can't change chromosomes, etc. But that wasn't the argument from the student; the student says that it's about common courtesy. And you know what? I think the student is right! It absolutely is rude if a person says to you, "I want you to call me 'she' now even though I was born as a male, and also by this new name" and you refuse to do so. Again, to me this does not make Charlie Kirk look good, and this kind of argument kind of gives away the game to me that it's not just about kids or women's sports, it's about denying the existence of trans people and even adults' desire to live their lives as they want.
If this is meant to be the friendliest argument in favor of Charlie Kirk, then I say no thanks. Doesn't mean he should have been shot, of course he shouldn't have. But I will continue to say he was a toxic presence in our politics when he was alive.
Valid points for the most part. Agree to disagree on some such as I don't think it should be required for me to call a person by pronouns I don't agree with. They can identify and call themselves whatever they'd like, doesn't mean I have to agree to that. Change your life if you want, don't force me to change mine.
His response to gay marriage is based on his faith belief. He never tells anyone they shouldn't be gay or that they are less than for being gay. He's also on the record saying anyone who doesn't think gays can be conservative don't belong in the Conservative Party
Not sure anyone in that clip was talking about "required" other than Charlie Kirk himself, he brought that up. The student just said you should do it out of basic courtesy. I agree with the student. And I also think this statement betrays a larger attitude that trans people just shouldn't exist at all. Otherwise why refuse to call them by the name they have chosen as grown adults?
Universities were and so do some companies. Conservatives don't see lying to somebody as a courtesy and not helpful to them. Reality is tough enough without having to live in pretend land. You see playing along as caring, conservatives see telling the truth as the caring choice.
We will never agree about this.
And guess what… THATS OKAY! Neither have to be labeled a bigot or hater or racist or transphobe or whatever other term.
Discourse is fundamentally American. Share your opinions, listen to others opinions, agree to disagree sometimes.
Saying that trans people don't really exist and it's a lie is kind of transphobic, though.
You cannot scientifically change your sex. That's all I'm saying and that's not transphobic. It's factual, evidence based truth.
Okay but a trans person is someone who was born as one gender and wants to live and identify as the other. These people exist and are not lying about it.
No one is saying these people don't "exist." Of course they do and most people agree that adults should be free to live their lives however they want. However, the trans community has constructed the completely absurd argument that if you don't agree that a man can become a woman, or vice versa - which is a legitimate science based viewpoint - that you are denying their existence.
I think that if you say that no one can change their sex and refuse to call a trans person their current preferred name/pronouns because you don't believe in their transition . . . that kind of is denying their existence. Not denying there is a literal person in front of you, of course, but denying that they are who they say they are and that there is such a thing as "trans?" Yes, it is.
Also, if that is your viewpoint? I don't think you should be upset about being called "transphobic." You are, and proudly so. Own it!
BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:MinotStateBeav said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk
— Amir Odom (@amirxodom) September 13, 2025
(0:00) - Intro
(10:58) - On Second Amendment
(12:48) - On Empathy
(15:42) - On Gay People
(17:58) - On Trans People
(24:21) - On Racism
(28:21) - On Affirmative Action
(30:58) - On Critical Race Theory
(34:56) - On Illegal… pic.twitter.com/6NKI1L4jVt
I was thinking more something straight from Kirk himself.
It's includes clips of Kirk highlighting his core beliefs of each issue listed
Okay, but the argument from Kirk fans is that people on the left just unfairly take short clips of him saying negative stuff and that you can't see the full context. If a fan like this is selectively showing you POSITIVE clips of him, isn't that just the same thing on the other end?
What's a good way to get the full experience of the guy?
Fair point. I'll look later today and see if I can find something that fits more what you're looking for
Okay. So I did watch most of that guy's video you posted and here's my reaction:
Some of the points are fair, Kirk wasn't necessarily explicitly racist against Blacks or Latinos, just very much against DEI and affirmative action programs. One can agree or disagree with that but I wouldn't call it fundamentally offensive to say so.
When he talks about Kirk's opinions on LGBT issues is where you can tell this guy has to start tip-toeing around what Kirk actually said, especially because he's gay. Kirk explicitly says that he wouldn't allow gay marriage. The guy in the video kind of cuts off the clip right there and says in a hand-wavey kind of way, "Well I'm not going to dismiss the guy because of one opinion." Okay, maybe he wouldn't but could you see why a lot of gay or lesbian folks would pretty much call that a deal-breaker? If Charlie Kirk were in charge he'd take away their rights, and that seems pretty explicit to me. From my perspective, seeing this clip doesn't help at all. I dislike him even more after seeing it.
On the trans stuff: Kirk is polite with the trans person who questioned him in the clip, I'll give him that. And the criticism of clinics rushing to diagnose and prescribe medicine or surgery to kids who might show gender dysphoria is fair. But he also quite explicitly says that you shouldn't call a person by their preferred pronouns because it's a lie, and then he goes into saying that you can't change chromosomes, etc. But that wasn't the argument from the student; the student says that it's about common courtesy. And you know what? I think the student is right! It absolutely is rude if a person says to you, "I want you to call me 'she' now even though I was born as a male, and also by this new name" and you refuse to do so. Again, to me this does not make Charlie Kirk look good, and this kind of argument kind of gives away the game to me that it's not just about kids or women's sports, it's about denying the existence of trans people and even adults' desire to live their lives as they want.
If this is meant to be the friendliest argument in favor of Charlie Kirk, then I say no thanks. Doesn't mean he should have been shot, of course he shouldn't have. But I will continue to say he was a toxic presence in our politics when he was alive.
Valid points for the most part. Agree to disagree on some such as I don't think it should be required for me to call a person by pronouns I don't agree with. They can identify and call themselves whatever they'd like, doesn't mean I have to agree to that. Change your life if you want, don't force me to change mine.
His response to gay marriage is based on his faith belief. He never tells anyone they shouldn't be gay or that they are less than for being gay. He's also on the record saying anyone who doesn't think gays can be conservative don't belong in the Conservative Party
Not sure anyone in that clip was talking about "required" other than Charlie Kirk himself, he brought that up. The student just said you should do it out of basic courtesy. I agree with the student. And I also think this statement betrays a larger attitude that trans people just shouldn't exist at all. Otherwise why refuse to call them by the name they have chosen as grown adults?
Universities were and so do some companies. Conservatives don't see lying to somebody as a courtesy and not helpful to them. Reality is tough enough without having to live in pretend land. You see playing along as caring, conservatives see telling the truth as the caring choice.
We will never agree about this.
And guess what… THATS OKAY! Neither have to be labeled a bigot or hater or racist or transphobe or whatever other term.
Discourse is fundamentally American. Share your opinions, listen to others opinions, agree to disagree sometimes.
Saying that trans people don't really exist and it's a lie is kind of transphobic, though.
You cannot scientifically change your sex. That's all I'm saying and that's not transphobic. It's factual, evidence based truth.
Okay but a trans person is someone who was born as one gender and wants to live and identify as the other. These people exist and are not lying about it.
No one is saying these people don't "exist." Of course they do and most people agree that adults should be free to live their lives however they want. However, the trans community has constructed the completely absurd argument that if you don't agree that a man can become a woman, or vice versa - which is a legitimate science based viewpoint - that you are denying their existence.
BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:MinotStateBeav said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk
— Amir Odom (@amirxodom) September 13, 2025
(0:00) - Intro
(10:58) - On Second Amendment
(12:48) - On Empathy
(15:42) - On Gay People
(17:58) - On Trans People
(24:21) - On Racism
(28:21) - On Affirmative Action
(30:58) - On Critical Race Theory
(34:56) - On Illegal… pic.twitter.com/6NKI1L4jVt
I was thinking more something straight from Kirk himself.
It's includes clips of Kirk highlighting his core beliefs of each issue listed
Okay, but the argument from Kirk fans is that people on the left just unfairly take short clips of him saying negative stuff and that you can't see the full context. If a fan like this is selectively showing you POSITIVE clips of him, isn't that just the same thing on the other end?
What's a good way to get the full experience of the guy?
Fair point. I'll look later today and see if I can find something that fits more what you're looking for
Okay. So I did watch most of that guy's video you posted and here's my reaction:
Some of the points are fair, Kirk wasn't necessarily explicitly racist against Blacks or Latinos, just very much against DEI and affirmative action programs. One can agree or disagree with that but I wouldn't call it fundamentally offensive to say so.
When he talks about Kirk's opinions on LGBT issues is where you can tell this guy has to start tip-toeing around what Kirk actually said, especially because he's gay. Kirk explicitly says that he wouldn't allow gay marriage. The guy in the video kind of cuts off the clip right there and says in a hand-wavey kind of way, "Well I'm not going to dismiss the guy because of one opinion." Okay, maybe he wouldn't but could you see why a lot of gay or lesbian folks would pretty much call that a deal-breaker? If Charlie Kirk were in charge he'd take away their rights, and that seems pretty explicit to me. From my perspective, seeing this clip doesn't help at all. I dislike him even more after seeing it.
On the trans stuff: Kirk is polite with the trans person who questioned him in the clip, I'll give him that. And the criticism of clinics rushing to diagnose and prescribe medicine or surgery to kids who might show gender dysphoria is fair. But he also quite explicitly says that you shouldn't call a person by their preferred pronouns because it's a lie, and then he goes into saying that you can't change chromosomes, etc. But that wasn't the argument from the student; the student says that it's about common courtesy. And you know what? I think the student is right! It absolutely is rude if a person says to you, "I want you to call me 'she' now even though I was born as a male, and also by this new name" and you refuse to do so. Again, to me this does not make Charlie Kirk look good, and this kind of argument kind of gives away the game to me that it's not just about kids or women's sports, it's about denying the existence of trans people and even adults' desire to live their lives as they want.
If this is meant to be the friendliest argument in favor of Charlie Kirk, then I say no thanks. Doesn't mean he should have been shot, of course he shouldn't have. But I will continue to say he was a toxic presence in our politics when he was alive.
Valid points for the most part. Agree to disagree on some such as I don't think it should be required for me to call a person by pronouns I don't agree with. They can identify and call themselves whatever they'd like, doesn't mean I have to agree to that. Change your life if you want, don't force me to change mine.
His response to gay marriage is based on his faith belief. He never tells anyone they shouldn't be gay or that they are less than for being gay. He's also on the record saying anyone who doesn't think gays can be conservative don't belong in the Conservative Party
Not sure anyone in that clip was talking about "required" other than Charlie Kirk himself, he brought that up. The student just said you should do it out of basic courtesy. I agree with the student. And I also think this statement betrays a larger attitude that trans people just shouldn't exist at all. Otherwise why refuse to call them by the name they have chosen as grown adults?
Universities were and so do some companies. Conservatives don't see lying to somebody as a courtesy and not helpful to them. Reality is tough enough without having to live in pretend land. You see playing along as caring, conservatives see telling the truth as the caring choice.
We will never agree about this.
And guess what… THATS OKAY! Neither have to be labeled a bigot or hater or racist or transphobe or whatever other term.
Discourse is fundamentally American. Share your opinions, listen to others opinions, agree to disagree sometimes.
Saying that trans people don't really exist and it's a lie is kind of transphobic, though.
You cannot scientifically change your sex. That's all I'm saying and that's not transphobic. It's factual, evidence based truth.
Okay but a trans person is someone who was born as one gender and wants to live and identify as the other. These people exist and are not lying about it.
No one is saying these people don't "exist." Of course they do and most people agree that adults should be free to live their lives however they want. However, the trans community has constructed the completely absurd argument that if you don't agree that a man can become a woman, or vice versa - which is a legitimate science based viewpoint - that you are denying their existence.
I think that if you say that no one can change their sex and refuse to call a trans person their current preferred name/pronouns because you don't believe in their transition . . . that kind of is denying their existence. Not denying there is a literal person in front of you, of course, but denying that they are who they say they are and that there is such a thing as "trans?" Yes, it is.
Also, if that is your viewpoint? I don't think you should be upset about being called "transphobic." You are, and proudly so. Own it!
No - it is being rude and insensitive. If you tell me your a horse and I disagree, what then? If a white person claims to be black, what then?
If I'm Jewish and a person tells me I'm going to burn in hell for not accepting Christ, does that "deny my existence"? If Christmas is a national holiday but Hanukkah is not, does that deny my Jewish existence? What about a cult leader who claims to be the reincarnation of Christ? Am I obliged to accept that? If not, what is the difference?
This formulation is absurd. No one has any obligation to accept another person's claim as to "who they are" and confer agreement with it. That is an irrational expectation that infringes on the other person's liberties - it is a free country and we can think what we want (even hateful or intolerant thoughts). And beyond that, it is an unhealthy dynamic where the trans person is relying on others for affirmations. Why would any person confer that power on another?
Just to be clear, I would want to confer dignity on any trans person I meet. I have no desire to offend or hurt. But that is my choice and a trans person has no right to demand that from everyone.
bearister said:OsoDorado said:
Simple Question:
How is it possibly legal to carry and openly display these kinds of semi-automatic weapons (AR-15s?) in public?
What purpose other than intimidation does this serve, and whatever 2nd amendment defense is offered, isn't it out-weighed the right of citizens to not have their safety so brazenly threatened?
Those photos are in Open Carry states. California used to be like that until White men saw this:
….and then said, "F@uck that!" and then passed the Mumford Act making it illegal to carry a loaded firearm openly in public without a government-issued.
"I hope that it’s been eye-opening for the public to see the blood lust that exists, not just on fringe-left obviously, but also in the mainstream left in the aftermath of this assassination.” Me on @JesseBWatters' show: pic.twitter.com/CzvUnN9X13
— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) September 16, 2025
bearister said:PAC-10-BEAR said:The reason the idea that “both sides” commit political violence is so offensive is not only that it’s false; it’s that it reassigns to the Right to half the guilt of a crime committed against them, while not one Democrat has apologized for the rhetoric they shared with the killer pic.twitter.com/I5DdaRqrB3
— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) September 16, 2025
Right-Wing Extremist Terrorism in the United States | ADL
movielover said:
Two Chinese-based Billionaires funding the trans movement - but not in Chyna!
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DN6udHFDdFI/?igsh=MWFiNm1kZXRxYTJqbw==
Big C said:PAC-10-BEAR said:The reason the idea that “both sides” commit political violence is so offensive is not only that it’s false; it’s that it reassigns to the Right to half the guilt of a crime committed against them, while not one Democrat has apologized for the rhetoric they shared with the killer pic.twitter.com/I5DdaRqrB3
— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) September 16, 2025
Saw this chick on Bill Maher last year or whenever. To her credit, she's fairly hot, but she also seems like she's making a crafted effort to forge a career as a fairly hot right-wing woman who is a quasi-intellectual. However, as noted by sycasey, she's just wrong on most stuff... like a Thomas Sowell Intellectual.
so, not so hot
sycasey said:PAC-10-BEAR said:The reason the idea that “both sides” commit political violence is so offensive is not only that it’s false; it’s that it reassigns to the Right to half the guilt of a crime committed against them, while not one Democrat has apologized for the rhetoric they shared with the killer pic.twitter.com/I5DdaRqrB3
— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) September 16, 2025
This is just so 100% incorrect I'm kind of in disbelief she said it, but Batya is an idiot so I shouldn't be surprised.
We have already discussed many times the killing of Democrat Melissa Hartman by conservative reigious activist and one-time registered Republican Vance Boelter. Republicans and conservatives on this very forum have tried to argue that Boelter was actually a leftist, which the bulk of available evidence says he was not. Both sides absolutely do this.
sycasey said:
This is just so 100% incorrect I'm kind of in disbelief she said it, but Batya is an idiot so I shouldn't be surprised.
Fox News is suddenly pretending like Charlie Kirk wasn’t banned from their network at one point.
— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) September 16, 2025
Do not be fooled.
As a former booking producer, there was a period of time when he wasn’t allowed on.
movielover said:
Bloodlust on the mainstream Left exposed.
Was Thomas Crooks trantifa?
— C3 (@C_3C_3) September 15, 2025
is she seeking reparations of some sort?PAC-10-BEAR said:The reason the idea that “both sides” commit political violence is so offensive is not only that it’s false; it’s that it reassigns to the Right to half the guilt of a crime committed against them, while not one Democrat has apologized for the rhetoric they shared with the killer pic.twitter.com/I5DdaRqrB3
— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) September 16, 2025
stop with the drama and emerge from your bunker unarmedPAC-10-BEAR said:movielover said:
Bloodlust on the mainstream Left exposed.
Conservatives have underestimated the left's bloodlust. I hope it's obvious now. Portland was the warning. What you see now is the harvest of seeds planted decades ago.
- Andy Ngo
socaltownie said:
Cool. I look forward to when you someday have to give law enforcement a witness statement. #popcorn
socaltownie said:
Yes. You have the freedom to be an *******. We have the freedim to call you one. What many oppose is that you wany us bite our tongue rather than call you out. I refuse.
BearlySane88 said:socaltownie said:
Yes. You have the freedom to be an *******. We have the freedim to call you one. What many oppose is that you wany us bite our tongue rather than call you out. I refuse.
Lol. Said people who are actively shaming employers into firing people because their buts hurt.
Nah we don't want you to bite your tongue, we just want you to realize shaming us for it doesn't change anything. You can get all hot and bothered and raise your voice and we still won't jump on board the crazy train
We’ve reached the point where straight white male school shooters are now being painted as the left. Like, come on. Give it a rest. https://t.co/l5gp2lHlcW
— Akilah Hughes (@AkilahObviously) September 16, 2025
BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:MinotStateBeav said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk
— Amir Odom (@amirxodom) September 13, 2025
(0:00) - Intro
(10:58) - On Second Amendment
(12:48) - On Empathy
(15:42) - On Gay People
(17:58) - On Trans People
(24:21) - On Racism
(28:21) - On Affirmative Action
(30:58) - On Critical Race Theory
(34:56) - On Illegal… pic.twitter.com/6NKI1L4jVt
I was thinking more something straight from Kirk himself.
It's includes clips of Kirk highlighting his core beliefs of each issue listed
Okay, but the argument from Kirk fans is that people on the left just unfairly take short clips of him saying negative stuff and that you can't see the full context. If a fan like this is selectively showing you POSITIVE clips of him, isn't that just the same thing on the other end?
What's a good way to get the full experience of the guy?
Fair point. I'll look later today and see if I can find something that fits more what you're looking for
Okay. So I did watch most of that guy's video you posted and here's my reaction:
Some of the points are fair, Kirk wasn't necessarily explicitly racist against Blacks or Latinos, just very much against DEI and affirmative action programs. One can agree or disagree with that but I wouldn't call it fundamentally offensive to say so.
When he talks about Kirk's opinions on LGBT issues is where you can tell this guy has to start tip-toeing around what Kirk actually said, especially because he's gay. Kirk explicitly says that he wouldn't allow gay marriage. The guy in the video kind of cuts off the clip right there and says in a hand-wavey kind of way, "Well I'm not going to dismiss the guy because of one opinion." Okay, maybe he wouldn't but could you see why a lot of gay or lesbian folks would pretty much call that a deal-breaker? If Charlie Kirk were in charge he'd take away their rights, and that seems pretty explicit to me. From my perspective, seeing this clip doesn't help at all. I dislike him even more after seeing it.
On the trans stuff: Kirk is polite with the trans person who questioned him in the clip, I'll give him that. And the criticism of clinics rushing to diagnose and prescribe medicine or surgery to kids who might show gender dysphoria is fair. But he also quite explicitly says that you shouldn't call a person by their preferred pronouns because it's a lie, and then he goes into saying that you can't change chromosomes, etc. But that wasn't the argument from the student; the student says that it's about common courtesy. And you know what? I think the student is right! It absolutely is rude if a person says to you, "I want you to call me 'she' now even though I was born as a male, and also by this new name" and you refuse to do so. Again, to me this does not make Charlie Kirk look good, and this kind of argument kind of gives away the game to me that it's not just about kids or women's sports, it's about denying the existence of trans people and even adults' desire to live their lives as they want.
If this is meant to be the friendliest argument in favor of Charlie Kirk, then I say no thanks. Doesn't mean he should have been shot, of course he shouldn't have. But I will continue to say he was a toxic presence in our politics when he was alive.
Valid points for the most part. Agree to disagree on some such as I don't think it should be required for me to call a person by pronouns I don't agree with. They can identify and call themselves whatever they'd like, doesn't mean I have to agree to that. Change your life if you want, don't force me to change mine.
His response to gay marriage is based on his faith belief. He never tells anyone they shouldn't be gay or that they are less than for being gay. He's also on the record saying anyone who doesn't think gays can be conservative don't belong in the Conservative Party
Not sure anyone in that clip was talking about "required" other than Charlie Kirk himself, he brought that up. The student just said you should do it out of basic courtesy. I agree with the student. And I also think this statement betrays a larger attitude that trans people just shouldn't exist at all. Otherwise why refuse to call them by the name they have chosen as grown adults?
Universities were and so do some companies. Conservatives don't see lying to somebody as a courtesy and not helpful to them. Reality is tough enough without having to live in pretend land. You see playing along as caring, conservatives see telling the truth as the caring choice.
We will never agree about this.
And guess what… THATS OKAY! Neither have to be labeled a bigot or hater or racist or transphobe or whatever other term.
Discourse is fundamentally American. Share your opinions, listen to others opinions, agree to disagree sometimes.
Saying that trans people don't really exist and it's a lie is kind of transphobic, though.
You cannot scientifically change your sex. That's all I'm saying and that's not transphobic. It's factual, evidence based truth.
Okay but a trans person is someone who was born as one gender and wants to live and identify as the other. These people exist and are not lying about it.
No one is saying these people don't "exist." Of course they do and most people agree that adults should be free to live their lives however they want. However, the trans community has constructed the completely absurd argument that if you don't agree that a man can become a woman, or vice versa - which is a legitimate science based viewpoint - that you are denying their existence.
I think that if you say that no one can change their sex and refuse to call a trans person their current preferred name/pronouns because you don't believe in their transition . . . that kind of is denying their existence. Not denying there is a literal person in front of you, of course, but denying that they are who they say they are and that there is such a thing as "trans?" Yes, it is.
Also, if that is your viewpoint? I don't think you should be upset about being called "transphobic." You are, and proudly so. Own it!
No - it is being rude and insensitive. If you tell me your a horse and I disagree, what then? If a white person claims to be black, what then?
If I'm Jewish and a person tells me I'm going to burn in hell for not accepting Christ, does that "deny my existence"? If Christmas is a national holiday but Hanukkah is not, does that deny my Jewish existence? What about a cult leader who claims to be the reincarnation of Christ? Am I obliged to accept that? If not, what is the difference?
This formulation is absurd. No one has any obligation to accept another person's claim as to "who they are" and confer agreement with it. That is an irrational expectation that infringes on the other person's liberties - it is a free country and we can think what we want (even hateful or intolerant thoughts). And beyond that, it is an unhealthy dynamic where the trans person is relying on others for affirmations. Why would any person confer that power on another?
Just to be clear, I would want to confer dignity on any trans person I meet. I have no desire to offend or hurt. But that is my choice and a trans person has no right to demand that from everyone.
socaltownie said:
Yes. You have the freedom to be an *******. We have the freedim to call you one. What many oppose is that you wany us bite our tongue rather than call you out. I refuse.
sycasey said:BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:MinotStateBeav said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk
— Amir Odom (@amirxodom) September 13, 2025
(0:00) - Intro
(10:58) - On Second Amendment
(12:48) - On Empathy
(15:42) - On Gay People
(17:58) - On Trans People
(24:21) - On Racism
(28:21) - On Affirmative Action
(30:58) - On Critical Race Theory
(34:56) - On Illegal… pic.twitter.com/6NKI1L4jVt
I was thinking more something straight from Kirk himself.
It's includes clips of Kirk highlighting his core beliefs of each issue listed
Okay, but the argument from Kirk fans is that people on the left just unfairly take short clips of him saying negative stuff and that you can't see the full context. If a fan like this is selectively showing you POSITIVE clips of him, isn't that just the same thing on the other end?
What's a good way to get the full experience of the guy?
Fair point. I'll look later today and see if I can find something that fits more what you're looking for
Okay. So I did watch most of that guy's video you posted and here's my reaction:
Some of the points are fair, Kirk wasn't necessarily explicitly racist against Blacks or Latinos, just very much against DEI and affirmative action programs. One can agree or disagree with that but I wouldn't call it fundamentally offensive to say so.
When he talks about Kirk's opinions on LGBT issues is where you can tell this guy has to start tip-toeing around what Kirk actually said, especially because he's gay. Kirk explicitly says that he wouldn't allow gay marriage. The guy in the video kind of cuts off the clip right there and says in a hand-wavey kind of way, "Well I'm not going to dismiss the guy because of one opinion." Okay, maybe he wouldn't but could you see why a lot of gay or lesbian folks would pretty much call that a deal-breaker? If Charlie Kirk were in charge he'd take away their rights, and that seems pretty explicit to me. From my perspective, seeing this clip doesn't help at all. I dislike him even more after seeing it.
On the trans stuff: Kirk is polite with the trans person who questioned him in the clip, I'll give him that. And the criticism of clinics rushing to diagnose and prescribe medicine or surgery to kids who might show gender dysphoria is fair. But he also quite explicitly says that you shouldn't call a person by their preferred pronouns because it's a lie, and then he goes into saying that you can't change chromosomes, etc. But that wasn't the argument from the student; the student says that it's about common courtesy. And you know what? I think the student is right! It absolutely is rude if a person says to you, "I want you to call me 'she' now even though I was born as a male, and also by this new name" and you refuse to do so. Again, to me this does not make Charlie Kirk look good, and this kind of argument kind of gives away the game to me that it's not just about kids or women's sports, it's about denying the existence of trans people and even adults' desire to live their lives as they want.
If this is meant to be the friendliest argument in favor of Charlie Kirk, then I say no thanks. Doesn't mean he should have been shot, of course he shouldn't have. But I will continue to say he was a toxic presence in our politics when he was alive.
Valid points for the most part. Agree to disagree on some such as I don't think it should be required for me to call a person by pronouns I don't agree with. They can identify and call themselves whatever they'd like, doesn't mean I have to agree to that. Change your life if you want, don't force me to change mine.
His response to gay marriage is based on his faith belief. He never tells anyone they shouldn't be gay or that they are less than for being gay. He's also on the record saying anyone who doesn't think gays can be conservative don't belong in the Conservative Party
Not sure anyone in that clip was talking about "required" other than Charlie Kirk himself, he brought that up. The student just said you should do it out of basic courtesy. I agree with the student. And I also think this statement betrays a larger attitude that trans people just shouldn't exist at all. Otherwise why refuse to call them by the name they have chosen as grown adults?
Universities were and so do some companies. Conservatives don't see lying to somebody as a courtesy and not helpful to them. Reality is tough enough without having to live in pretend land. You see playing along as caring, conservatives see telling the truth as the caring choice.
We will never agree about this.
And guess what… THATS OKAY! Neither have to be labeled a bigot or hater or racist or transphobe or whatever other term.
Discourse is fundamentally American. Share your opinions, listen to others opinions, agree to disagree sometimes.
Saying that trans people don't really exist and it's a lie is kind of transphobic, though.
You cannot scientifically change your sex. That's all I'm saying and that's not transphobic. It's factual, evidence based truth.
Okay but a trans person is someone who was born as one gender and wants to live and identify as the other. These people exist and are not lying about it.
No one is saying these people don't "exist." Of course they do and most people agree that adults should be free to live their lives however they want. However, the trans community has constructed the completely absurd argument that if you don't agree that a man can become a woman, or vice versa - which is a legitimate science based viewpoint - that you are denying their existence.
I think that if you say that no one can change their sex and refuse to call a trans person their current preferred name/pronouns because you don't believe in their transition . . . that kind of is denying their existence. Not denying there is a literal person in front of you, of course, but denying that they are who they say they are and that there is such a thing as "trans?" Yes, it is.
Also, if that is your viewpoint? I don't think you should be upset about being called "transphobic." You are, and proudly so. Own it!
No - it is being rude and insensitive. If you tell me your a horse and I disagree, what then? If a white person claims to be black, what then?
If I'm Jewish and a person tells me I'm going to burn in hell for not accepting Christ, does that "deny my existence"? If Christmas is a national holiday but Hanukkah is not, does that deny my Jewish existence? What about a cult leader who claims to be the reincarnation of Christ? Am I obliged to accept that? If not, what is the difference?
This formulation is absurd. No one has any obligation to accept another person's claim as to "who they are" and confer agreement with it. That is an irrational expectation that infringes on the other person's liberties - it is a free country and we can think what we want (even hateful or intolerant thoughts). And beyond that, it is an unhealthy dynamic where the trans person is relying on others for affirmations. Why would any person confer that power on another?
Just to be clear, I would want to confer dignity on any trans person I meet. I have no desire to offend or hurt. But that is my choice and a trans person has no right to demand that from everyone.
In a legal sense? No, no particular obligation. In a moral sense? Yeah, I think you typically should. Obviously there are limits, but I don't think referring to someone with male versus female pronouns is over that limit.
BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearGoggles said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:MinotStateBeav said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:sycasey said:BearlySane88 said:Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk
— Amir Odom (@amirxodom) September 13, 2025
(0:00) - Intro
(10:58) - On Second Amendment
(12:48) - On Empathy
(15:42) - On Gay People
(17:58) - On Trans People
(24:21) - On Racism
(28:21) - On Affirmative Action
(30:58) - On Critical Race Theory
(34:56) - On Illegal… pic.twitter.com/6NKI1L4jVt
I was thinking more something straight from Kirk himself.
It's includes clips of Kirk highlighting his core beliefs of each issue listed
Okay, but the argument from Kirk fans is that people on the left just unfairly take short clips of him saying negative stuff and that you can't see the full context. If a fan like this is selectively showing you POSITIVE clips of him, isn't that just the same thing on the other end?
What's a good way to get the full experience of the guy?
Fair point. I'll look later today and see if I can find something that fits more what you're looking for
Okay. So I did watch most of that guy's video you posted and here's my reaction:
Some of the points are fair, Kirk wasn't necessarily explicitly racist against Blacks or Latinos, just very much against DEI and affirmative action programs. One can agree or disagree with that but I wouldn't call it fundamentally offensive to say so.
When he talks about Kirk's opinions on LGBT issues is where you can tell this guy has to start tip-toeing around what Kirk actually said, especially because he's gay. Kirk explicitly says that he wouldn't allow gay marriage. The guy in the video kind of cuts off the clip right there and says in a hand-wavey kind of way, "Well I'm not going to dismiss the guy because of one opinion." Okay, maybe he wouldn't but could you see why a lot of gay or lesbian folks would pretty much call that a deal-breaker? If Charlie Kirk were in charge he'd take away their rights, and that seems pretty explicit to me. From my perspective, seeing this clip doesn't help at all. I dislike him even more after seeing it.
On the trans stuff: Kirk is polite with the trans person who questioned him in the clip, I'll give him that. And the criticism of clinics rushing to diagnose and prescribe medicine or surgery to kids who might show gender dysphoria is fair. But he also quite explicitly says that you shouldn't call a person by their preferred pronouns because it's a lie, and then he goes into saying that you can't change chromosomes, etc. But that wasn't the argument from the student; the student says that it's about common courtesy. And you know what? I think the student is right! It absolutely is rude if a person says to you, "I want you to call me 'she' now even though I was born as a male, and also by this new name" and you refuse to do so. Again, to me this does not make Charlie Kirk look good, and this kind of argument kind of gives away the game to me that it's not just about kids or women's sports, it's about denying the existence of trans people and even adults' desire to live their lives as they want.
If this is meant to be the friendliest argument in favor of Charlie Kirk, then I say no thanks. Doesn't mean he should have been shot, of course he shouldn't have. But I will continue to say he was a toxic presence in our politics when he was alive.
Valid points for the most part. Agree to disagree on some such as I don't think it should be required for me to call a person by pronouns I don't agree with. They can identify and call themselves whatever they'd like, doesn't mean I have to agree to that. Change your life if you want, don't force me to change mine.
His response to gay marriage is based on his faith belief. He never tells anyone they shouldn't be gay or that they are less than for being gay. He's also on the record saying anyone who doesn't think gays can be conservative don't belong in the Conservative Party
Not sure anyone in that clip was talking about "required" other than Charlie Kirk himself, he brought that up. The student just said you should do it out of basic courtesy. I agree with the student. And I also think this statement betrays a larger attitude that trans people just shouldn't exist at all. Otherwise why refuse to call them by the name they have chosen as grown adults?
Universities were and so do some companies. Conservatives don't see lying to somebody as a courtesy and not helpful to them. Reality is tough enough without having to live in pretend land. You see playing along as caring, conservatives see telling the truth as the caring choice.
We will never agree about this.
And guess what… THATS OKAY! Neither have to be labeled a bigot or hater or racist or transphobe or whatever other term.
Discourse is fundamentally American. Share your opinions, listen to others opinions, agree to disagree sometimes.
Saying that trans people don't really exist and it's a lie is kind of transphobic, though.
You cannot scientifically change your sex. That's all I'm saying and that's not transphobic. It's factual, evidence based truth.
Okay but a trans person is someone who was born as one gender and wants to live and identify as the other. These people exist and are not lying about it.
No one is saying these people don't "exist." Of course they do and most people agree that adults should be free to live their lives however they want. However, the trans community has constructed the completely absurd argument that if you don't agree that a man can become a woman, or vice versa - which is a legitimate science based viewpoint - that you are denying their existence.
I think that if you say that no one can change their sex and refuse to call a trans person their current preferred name/pronouns because you don't believe in their transition . . . that kind of is denying their existence. Not denying there is a literal person in front of you, of course, but denying that they are who they say they are and that there is such a thing as "trans?" Yes, it is.
Also, if that is your viewpoint? I don't think you should be upset about being called "transphobic." You are, and proudly so. Own it!
No - it is being rude and insensitive. If you tell me your a horse and I disagree, what then? If a white person claims to be black, what then?
If I'm Jewish and a person tells me I'm going to burn in hell for not accepting Christ, does that "deny my existence"? If Christmas is a national holiday but Hanukkah is not, does that deny my Jewish existence? What about a cult leader who claims to be the reincarnation of Christ? Am I obliged to accept that? If not, what is the difference?
This formulation is absurd. No one has any obligation to accept another person's claim as to "who they are" and confer agreement with it. That is an irrational expectation that infringes on the other person's liberties - it is a free country and we can think what we want (even hateful or intolerant thoughts). And beyond that, it is an unhealthy dynamic where the trans person is relying on others for affirmations. Why would any person confer that power on another?
Just to be clear, I would want to confer dignity on any trans person I meet. I have no desire to offend or hurt. But that is my choice and a trans person has no right to demand that from everyone.
In a legal sense? No, no particular obligation. In a moral sense? Yeah, I think you typically should. Obviously there are limits, but I don't think referring to someone with male versus female pronouns is over that limit.
We happen to agree on that. But people who disagree are not fascists, transphobic, or killing trans people.
